The prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies in women with late pregnancy complications and low‐risk for chromosomal abnormalities

Foddai, Silvia Grazietta; Radin, Massimo; Cecchi, Irene; Gaito, Silvia; Orpheu, Giulia; Rubini, Elena; Barinotti, Alice; Menegatti, Elisa; Mengozzi, Giulio; Roccatello, Dario; Manetta, Tilde; Marello, Barbara Donati; Benedetto, Chiara; Marozio, Luca; Sciascia, Savino

doi:10.1111/jth.15053

Cited by 7 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(54 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistently with the results of Andreoli et al high frequencies of aPL among women with late pregnancy loss have also been reported in recent studies [ 34 •, 36 – 38 ]. In 582 women with fetal loss at or after 20 weeks of gestation, Silver et al reported 9.6% positivity of one or more antibody including IgG/IgM aCL and anti- β 2 GPI.…”

Section: Pregnancy Morbidity and Prevalence Of Antiphospholipid Antibodiessupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Excluding stillbirths associated with fetal anomalies, 11.3% of patients were positive for at least one aPL [ 38 ]. Additionally, in another case-control multicentric study, 3 out of 7 women with stillbirth were positive for at least one aPL [ 36 ].…”

Section: Pregnancy Morbidity and Prevalence Of Antiphospholipid Antibodiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding outcomes associated with placental insufficiency, the prevalence of aPL positivity in women with late-onset pregnancy complications associated with placental insufficiency is reported to be around 31%, compared to 10% in those without placental insufficiency [ 36 ]. In a recently published case-control study, women having preterm births due to preeclampsia or placental insufficiency were more likely to have positive aPL than controls 11.5% vs 1.4%.…”

Section: Pregnancy Morbidity and Prevalence Of Antiphospholipid Antibodiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When separating between different outcomes associated with placental insufficiency, Andreoli et al reported a median frequency of 17% and 2% for aCL and LAC in pregnancies with intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), while in preeclampsia, the median frequency was 3%, 5%, and 7% for aCL, anti- β 2 GPI, and LAC, respectively [ 34 •]. In more recent studies, the overall frequency of aPL in women of preeclampsia ranged between 11 and 35% [ 36 , 39 ]. Higher median frequencies were seen in eclampsia in Andreoli review and up to 53% of LAC positivity among patients with HELLP syndrome [ 34 •].…”

Section: Pregnancy Morbidity and Prevalence Of Antiphospholipid Antibodiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Epidemiology of Antiphospholipid Syndrome in the General Population

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review The epidemiology of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is poorly understood. Here, we review the current understanding of the epidemiology of antiphospholipid syndrome in the general population and the frequency of antiphospholipid antibodies in the general population in patients with obstetric morbidity, arterial events, and venous thromboembolism. Recent Findings There have been few population-based studies that estimated the prevalence and incidence of APS. The estimated incidence and prevalence among most these studies ranged between 1 and 2 cases per 100,000 and 40 and 50 cases per 100,000 respectively. The prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies in patients with obstetric morbidity was 6–9%, while in arterial events and venous thromboembolism is 9–10%. However, this data remains limited. Mortality of patients with APS is 50–80% higher than the general population. Summary The epidemiology of APS has been difficult to elucidate. Population-based studies patients with diverse age, racial, and ethnic backgrounds are needed.

show abstract

Section: Pregnancy Morbidity and Prevalence Of Antiphospholipid Antibodiessupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Pregnancy Morbidity and Prevalence Of Antiphospholipid Antibodiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pregnancy Morbidity and Prevalence Of Antiphospholipid Antibodiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pregnancy Morbidity and Prevalence Of Antiphospholipid Antibodiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Epidemiology of Antiphospholipid Syndrome in the General Population

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is the case of the so-called tetrapositive patients (49). While aPS/PT have been reported in vascular APS, their association with the obstetric manifestations is still a matter of research (50)(51)(52). So, the inclusion of aPS/PT antibodies into the formal laboratory classification criteria has not been formally accepted up to now (32).…”

Section: Nonclassification Laboratory Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Antiphospholipid Antibody Assays in 2021: Looking for a Predictive Value in Addition to a Diagnostic One

Meroni

Borghi

2021

Front. Immunol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) are mandatory for the diagnosis but are also a risk factor for the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) clinical manifestations. Lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin (aCL), and anti-beta2 glycoprotein I (β2GPI) assays are the formal laboratory classification/diagnostic criteria. Additional nonclassification assays have been suggested; among them, antiphosphatidylserine-prothrombin (aPS/PT) and antidomain 1 β2GPI antibodies are the most promising ones although not yet formally accepted. aPL represent the example of a laboratory test that moved from dichotomous to quantitative results consistent with the idea that reporting quantitative data offers more diagnostic/prognostic information for both vascular and obstetric manifestations. Although the general rule is that the higher the aPL titer, the higher the test likelihood ratio, there is growing evidence that this is not the case for persistent low titers and obstetric events. LA displays the highest diagnostic/prognostic power, although some isolated LAs are apparently not associated with APS manifestations. Moreover, isotype characterization is also critical since IgG aPL are more diagnostic/prognostic than IgA or IgM. aPL are directed against two main autoantigens: β2GPI and PT. However, anti-β2GPI antibodies are more associated with the APS clinical spectrum. In addition, there is evidence that anti-β2GPI domain 1 antibodies display a stronger diagnostic/prognostic value. This finding supports the view that antigen and even epitope characterization represents a further step for improving the assay value. The strategy to improve aPL laboratory characterization is a lesson that can be translated to other autoantibody assays in order to improve our diagnostic and prognostic power.

show abstract